While the PAC's call for reform highlights genuine concerns regarding subsidy leakages, some observers caution against a rapid shift toward full market liberalization or floating prices for essential goods. Critics of a market-based approach argue that cooking oil is a staple commodity, and any sudden removal of price controls could lead to significant inflationary pressure on low-income families. They warn that while floating mechanisms have been used for other goods like chicken and eggs, cooking oil is a fundamental household necessity where price volatility can have an immediate and severe impact on the cost of living.
There is also concern that liberalizing the market without first establishing robust social safety nets could leave vulnerable populations exposed to price spikes. Skeptics argue that the focus should remain on fixing the existing enforcement and distribution loopholes rather than abandoning the price control mechanism entirely. They point out that the current problems are largely rooted in administrative failures—such as the lack of standard operating procedures for damaged stock and weak retail monitoring—rather than the concept of the subsidy itself.
Furthermore, critics emphasize that the dominance of foreign companies in the refining sector requires careful handling. A shift to an open-market system might inadvertently favor large, established players, potentially squeezing out smaller local packers who rely on the current subsidy structure to remain viable. Instead of a total overhaul that risks market instability, these voices advocate for a phased, cautious approach that prioritizes strengthening regulatory oversight and improving the efficiency of the current system before considering any radical changes to pricing models.